Patrice Seibert was asleep at the hospital bedside of her badly burned teenage son when police came and took her away.
The tactics used in the 3 a.m. arrest and interrogation of the Missouri mother of five, suspected of plotting with the injured son to set fire to her house trailer in February 1997, are at the heart of a case that has reached the Supreme Court.
The justices will hear arguments Tuesday and Wednesday in Seibert's case and two others, and what the court eventually decides will clarify how far police in every community can go to get answers from suspected criminals.
A fourth case to be argued in the spring involves standards for questioning of juveniles.
The cases require the court to sort out practical questions about enforcement of "Miranda" rights.
It's been almost 40 years since the court's landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling required officers to warn people arrested and questioned that they have the right to remain silent and to see a lawyer.
Took a gambleMissouri officers did not immediately read Seibert her rights after arresting her at a St. Louis burn center and taking her to a police station interview room.
It was a gamble, one officer said, to see if she would divulge information about the fire that killed a teenager who had been staying at the Seibert family trailer in Rolla. The officer said he learned the strategy in training sessions.
Police said Seibert arranged to have her home burned to cover up the death of her 12-year-old son, who had cerebral palsy and could not walk, talk or feed himself. She apparently was afraid to report her son's death and thought authorities would believe she had neglected the boy because he had bedsores, according to the Missouri Supreme Court ruling.
When she was arrested, Seibert was in the hospital with one son and preparing for the funeral the next day of the 12-year-old boy. Court records show she was considered suicidal.
At the police station, before being told of her rights, she gave some incriminating statements during a 40-minute interrogation. Officers allowed her to smoke a cigarette, then turned on a tape recorder, read her Miranda rights, and asked her to repeat what she told them in the first interview.
Seibert, now 45, was convicted of murder, based in part on information she gave officers that morning.
Ex-FBI chief against methodThe deliberate double interview is sneaky and should be stopped, the Supreme Court was told by a group of former prosecutors, judges and law officers, including former FBI director William Sessions.
The Bush administration argued, however, that officers should have flexibility in their questioning strategy without being second-guessed by judges because those questionings can be successful in, for example, helping locate a kidnapping victim or thwarting a terrorist attack.
The Supreme Court has sent conflicting messages on its Miranda views, and it is unclear if justices will be sympathetic to law officers or suspects.
The court reaffirmed Miranda in 2000, but in a surprise ruled this past May that officers cannot be sued for pressuring people to confess if the admission is not used in a prosecution.
Police "are asking to be unleashed, outside and inside the courtroom. They know they can't attack Miranda head-on. I see this is a backdoor attempt," said University of Iowa law professor James Tomkovicz, who wrote a brief opposing the government in one of the other Miranda cases.
The other cases involve the timing of the warnings. In one, a man claims he was tricked into talking to officers without a lawyer. The other involves whether police must read warnings to suspects who tell police not to bother telling them their rights.
Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:
For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.